This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-37476 4 MELVIN FREEMAN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant Melvin Freeman appeals fro m the revocation of his probation. We 18 previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to 192 affirm. Defendant has fi led a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 1 considered. Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we 2 uphold the revocation of Defendant’s probation. 3 {2} The pertinent background information has previously been set forth. We will 4 avoid undue reiteration here, focusing instead on the substantive content of the 5 memorandum in opposition. 6 {3} Defendant continues to challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support 7 the revocation of his probation. [MIO 10- 17] However, the State met its burden of 8 proof by presenting evidence, including the testimony of his probation officer, that 9 Defendant violated numerous conditions, and that Defendant did not make even initial 10 efforts to comply with those conditions. [CN 2; MIO 6, 9] This is sufficient to support 11 the revocation of Defendant’s probation. See generally State v. Leon , 2013-NMCA12 011, ¶¶ 36, 38-39, 292 P.3d 493 (holding that a probation officer’s testimony was 13 sufficient to establish a violation and to support revocation of probation); State v. 14 Parsons , 1986-NMCA-027, ¶ 25, 104 N.M. 123, 717 P.2d 99 (indicating that a 15 showing of non-compliance is generally suffi cient to justify a finding of willfulness). 16 {4} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant contends that the district court 17 erred in finding his non-compliance to be w ilful, based on evidence that he presented 18 relative to his own fi nancial constraints. [MIO 6, 8- 9, 11-15] However, the district 193 court was not required to accep t Defendant’s assertions of total inability to pay, 1 particularly in light of the vagaries of his own testimony. See generally State v. 2 Hughey , 2007-NMSC-036, ¶ 16, 142 N.M. 83, 163 P.3d 470 (stating that the fact 3 finder determines matters of credibility and the weight of evidence). 4 {5} Moreover, even if we assume that Defendant lacked the financial resources to 5 comply with some of the conditions of hi s probation, his probation officer explained 6 that he could fulfil other conditions, suchas the community service and counseling 7 requirements, free of charge and within his claimed physical limitations. [CN 3; MIO 8 6-7] Defendant’s undisputed failure to satisfy these requirements supplies adequate 9 independent grounds for the revocation of his probation. See Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, 10 ¶ 37 (“[A]lthough Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 11 each of his probation violations, if there is sufficient evidence to support just one 12 violation, we will find the distri ct court’s order was proper.”). 13 {6} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant claims that he did not remember 14 the information supplied by his probation officer, and accordingly, his violations 15 should not be deemed willful. [MIO 8, 12] Once again, however, the district court was 16 at liberty to disbelieve him. See generally State v. Lavone , 2011-NMCA-084, 17 ¶ 15, 150 N.M. 473, 261 P.3d 1105 (observing th at a defendant’s reliance on a mental 18 health issue to excuse hi s conduct essentially constituted a factual argument, which 194 the district court was not required to find persuasive). We similarly reject Defendant’s 1 suggestion that he bore no responsibility for following up on the information supplied 2 by his probation officer. [MIO 15-17] See, e.g., State v. Martinez , 1989-NMCA-036, 3 ¶¶ 9-10, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (rejecting an argument that a violation should 4 be excused, where the probationer made no follow-up effort to comply, based on his 5 erroneous assumption that compliance would be impossible). 6 {7} Finally, to the extent that Defendant argues his probation officer should have 7 done more to assist him in light of his claimed disabilities, [MIO 15-17] the record 8 before us is insufficient to support the claim of error. See generally State ex rel 9 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Johnny S., Sr. , 2009-NMCA-032, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 10 754, 204 P.3d 769 (indicating that in order topreserve issues concerning claims of 11 entitlement to accommodations based upon disab ilities, “there must be a request for 12 relief citing the ADA backed by facts developed in the record”). 13 {8} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 14 summary disposition, we affirm. 15 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

_______________________________ 17 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 185 WE CONCUR: 1

_________________________ 2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3

_________________________ 4 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 5